I was browsing through some headlines today and I came across this:
Apparently there is some hubbub about whether Hillary Clinton is eligible for a cabinet position at this time. Bush raised the salary for cabinet positions during her term in office, which makes her ineligible due to Article 1 Section six of the constitution. The entry basically states that if the salary of any civil office is raised during a senator or congressman's term, that lawmaker cannot accept the new position.
Now, in good faith, I don't care if she holds that cabinet position and if there's a way around the limitations then so be it. The general consensus in history has been that lowering the salary back to its original point is good enough to allow the lawmaker to accept the position constitutionally.
This was the line from the article that incited me to point it out though:
"There are many ways around this problem," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted. "One is for Congress to vote a lower salary. Another way is for Hillary Clinton simply to accept a lower salary. Another way is simply to ignore the problem on the idea that no one has the right, has the standing, to sue to stop her from being secretary of state."
This just in: No one has the right, no one has the standing, to enforce parts of the Constitution of the United States that are not convenient, at least according to published CNN analysts. Is that an inane statement or am I just harboring some repressed anger?